I don't see Clarke and Ivory as objective thinkers. Ivory is connected to
ALEC, which is front group for corporate control. Clarke is doing the bidding of
those who would sell off public lands for short term gain. Both causes are good
reasons to make sure Romney isn't elected. If Romney is elected, he'll
have coattails and the senate will go to the right. If he's defeated, the
senate will remain centrist, and while land issues will continue to fall in
favor of big energy, the rate of the fall will be lessened. I believe the
republican view of land borders on immorality, but that's for another
discussion.

""It has become very clear to us that this is not just a Utah
battle," she told members of the Legislature's Natural Resources,
Agriculture and Environment Interim Committee."

Then why is Utah
the only state foolish enough to keep taking the feds to court? "Costs
shouldn't be an issue"? Spoken like someone playing with taxpayers
dollars. Don't have any $$$ for education, but we sure do for lawyers &
losing causes. Eat that elephant on your own dime!

It is to bad when you have an organization like SUWA with less than 10,000
members pushing a few eastern congressman to lock up and stop access to the
public lands in Utah to the point that the state needs to do something like this
for the majority of the people to live and make a living.

I support acquisition of public lands. The state can cover costs by collecting
revenue from the proper use of this land. There is little to no basis for
arguments about misuse or mismanagement of the land. Utah has a proven track
record for properly managing state lands. We all want a beautiful state. The
state has my support in this endeavor.

I would support this if I had trust for politicians. If I knew they weren't
influenced by lobbyists with deep pockets who don't have the best interests
of the public but their own self-interests I might support this.

Remember in 2008 the Utah Supreme Court ruled unanimously that streams and
rivers in Utah are owned by the public and that there is, and always has been a
public easement on those rivers. With that, what did our legislature and
governor do? Did they act for the best interests of the public? Or were they
influenced by real estate and other special interests with deep pockets? The
latter. Meaning, the governor signed into law reversing the court ruling and
essentially taking away from the public that which the public owns - the
easement to rivers and streams. They broke the public trust, which is
technically illegal, since these waters are in the public trust and reversed the
unanimous ruling.

This gives me every reason to believe that they
will do it again: public forests, rivers, lakes, streams will be sold to private
developers and the public will be locked away forever, unless you have big $$ to
use it.

Utah's push to "open up" public lands is crony capitalism at
it's worst, this an attempted land grab to enrich those who finance and
underwrite the campaigns of our state lawmakers so that they can gain unfettered
access to public lands for their own economic benefit, all the while we're
being sold a bill of goods that this is in the best economic interest of the
State when there is absolutely no proof offered to support that fantasy! Also,
as I love to point out every year we have this nice little debate, that federal
land was NEVER owned by the State, it was actually purchased from Mexico after
the signing of the treaty of Hidalgo de guadalupe. In essence, the American
people paid for that land! Just because it was allowed to be drawn into
Utah's political boundaries doesn't mean it automatically belongs to
the State of Utah exclusively. I love the east coast analogies, but we
didn't buy that land with exception of the Louisiana purchase! The west
was purchased from Mexico using federal funds! How about Utah pay back the US
government PLUS interest!

Folks, the key word here is Public. That means the land is owned by every
citizen of the United States. I realize that very few people in Utah can grasp
this concept, but people living in Chicago, Boston, Dallas or Las Vegas all have
just as much interest in the management of Public lands in Utah as do the people
of Utah. The Federal government owned the land making up the entire state of
Utah before Utah was granted statehood. When Utah was granted statehood the
leaders of Utah signed an agreement, giving their word to recognize Federal
ownership of all Public lands.

So now Utah wants to sell, privatize
or develop my Public land in their state. I say no way. That lands is on loan
from my children and my grandchildren and you can't have it.

These lands belong to the federal government. The federal government's
right to own and manage these lands is clearly spelled out in the U.S.
Constitution which states:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose
of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other
Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall
be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any
particular State. (Article 4 Section 3)

The fact that Utah gave up
any claim to federal lands is also spelled out in the Utah State Constitution
which states:

The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare
that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public
lands lying within the boundaries hereof, and to all lands lying within said
limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title
thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and
remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands
shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the
United States. (Article 3 Section 2)

When states were granted statehood, they agreed that all federal land within
their boundaries would remain federal. In the west, that was a lot of land
within each state. Your forefathers in the state thought it was a good deal --
they wanted the benefits of statehood. To now somehow claim that the feds
"stole" the land is ridiculous. The state never had the land in the
first place.

The public lands belong to the entire US. The poverty created by having 98% of
the land in some southern Utah counties owned by an absentee landlord belongs to
the people of southern Utah alone.The federal government should address
that issue then maybe the Western states won't be suing them.

jocowhat you can't grasp is that utah should be controlled by utah
not chicago, dc, ny or oregon. very few states are owned and controlled to the
percentage of land that utah and a few other western states are. you might try
knowing what you are talking about before condeming utahns.

"Congress has tied the hands of Federal land managers" If that is so why
has the BLM given the green light on another 1300 new gas wells in Uintah
County? Why do we have now over 10,000 producing wells in Utah, a new high? Why
the mad growth and bad air in the basin? Is that hamstringing the oil and gas
industry?